tv Hearing Examines Benefits of Self- Driving Trucks CSPAN September 13, 2017 8:01pm-10:15pm EDT
and senator rubio are there today as they should be and looking out for the needs of their constituents and so again we certainly want to express our support for them and for the people of florida as they deal with the horrific storm and its aftermath. this committee has been working for some time in a bipartisan fashion to progresses the advancement of autonomous vehicles and i want to thank senator peters for partnering with me in this effort. and senator nelson who is unable to join us today. we put a lot of work into this effort to date and i look forward to continuing to work with this colleague to produce and pass bipartisan legislation. we are well positioned to over see and address the emergency of this transformative technology. beginning last congress we've held two hearings and hosted a
demonstration of this technology for commit canny members. we'll take a look at the implication and technology for larger vehicles. au ought mated vehicle technology expanding mobility, reducing traffic congestion and increasing productivity among other benefits. but the most exciting aspect is the potential to save thousands of lives every year on our nation's highways. more than 35,000 people died in major vehicle crashes in the united states. with more than 90% attribiatable to human error, automated vehicless have a chance to reduce these numbers dramatically. too many lives are lost on our roads and i look forward to hearing how ought mated vehicles including trucks can help. they keep our economy moving. it's important as we seek to improve safety and it puts our economy on a level playing field as other companies around the
world deploy freight trucks. at 2017 energy information administration study projected that automated trucks could yield fuel savings between 6.7 and 18.6% improving our economic competitiveness and supporting job growth. i'm glad that mr. spear has joined us today to speak to us about the role of automated trucks and innovation. comp aec companies have explored the potential benefit. companies like tesla, uber, and bart and others have invested in automated truck technology. some pursuing automalted technologies in trucks. chief of the colorado state patrol has seen this technology first hand.
last year he participated in the test of auto which drove 120 miles in colorado. as other countries devote significant attention and effort to stimulating innovation in this area, strong federal leadership will be necessary to maintain our position as global leader and maintain that these vehicles are tested and deployed safety. secretary chow announced it has updated its guidance on automated vehicles. dot's new guidance improves and takes the same position regarding all motor vehicles, both cars and trucks under the same regulatory framework and though their approaches differ, states have passed automated legislation similarly cover all cars, motor vehicles and trucks. cohesively without leaving out certain vehicle classes. of course it's important to consider all impacts of this new
technology. it's crucial we hear about the potential impact on jobs and engage in a discussion of how best to prepare for the future. so i'm glad mr. hall was able to join us today. they are the backbone of the economy. technological advancements have a potential to effect them in very different ways includinging positive ways. it should make a driver's life easier and safer. automation will bring many benefits and challenges. as former president johnson said during his term and i quote automation is not our enemy. automation can be the ally of our prosperity if we will just look ahead, if we will understand what is to come and if we will set our course wisely after proper planning for the future end quote. i'm glad we're continuing that discussion today. i look forward to hearing from
all our witnesses and i now want to turn to senator peters for his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for calling this very important hearing. as the chairman mentioned, i'm in this seat today because senator nelson is back home in the great state of florida, helping to begin the long recovery effort after the devastating hurricane irma and our thoughts and prayers are with senator nelson as well as all of the people of the state of florida last friday he and i released a discussion draft of our self-driving car legislation which is a result kof countless meetings of stake holders and further bipartisan work from senator nelson. i want to thank them for the many long efforts to go into
this draft. targeted at ushering in a new era. the bill will facilitate the safe development and adoption -- reduce existing regulatory barriers and establish a new regulatory framework to support this innovation going forward. importantly it will insure that the united states leads the international race to deploy these new technologies. we must develop and build them here in our country, creating a new 21st century manufacturing jobs as well. for the remainder of this month we will work diligently to resolve and finalize the outstanding issues in this draft legislation, including the topic of today's hearing. whether highly automated trucks and buses should be part of this particular legislation or addressed in some future piece of legislation.
i will note that while gathering feedback on my draft legislation, many stake holders were clear that prospect of self-driv self-driving trucks raise as very different set of issues from self-driving cars and ultimately the same stake holders express serious concerns with including self-driving trucks without a more robust discussion and evaluation of their impact by industry, academia and government. i will also note that our draft legislation was informed by two commerce committee hearings in march 2016 and june 2017 and two iterations of the federal automated vehicle policy, all of which were focussed on highly automated lightweight passenger cars, not trucks. and finally i will note that the house recently passed its self-driving vehicle legislation unanimously without the
inclusion of self-driving trucks weighing over 10,000 or 1,000 pounds. it's critically importedant to our day to day consumer needs. employing more than 3 million americans as truck drivers. the same can be said of the bus industry which provides importedant transportation options and creates thousands of jobs. major changes to these industries brought on by high levels of automation will have major impaktsz ct on jobs, transportation, and the economy, not to mention roadway safety and we need to make sure when we do establish a regulatory framework for self-driving trucks we get it right after having gone over all the implications. what is -- for example, what is the trucking industry's timeline for deployment of highly
automated trucks? will they deploy level four or five or stick to lower levels of automati automation? what standard will they need exemptions from? will the unique -- particularly for safety and cyber security issues. how will changes to the vehicle safety standards operate enforce and should we be considering those impacts now? what are the job impact pakts of highly automated trucks and what are the industry's plan for retaining or reassigning the drivers who are in danger of losing their jobs? but in our discussions to date we have not as clear an understanding on self-driving trucks as we have during our countless discussions on self-driving cars. i'm of the mind self-driving
trucks are not right for inclusion in this bill. improving safety on our highways is critically important to me. it's one of the reasons it's so important to me as well. but i also recognize in the long term self driving trucks and buss are bus s are intended to improve safety on our highways and excluding self driving trucks, i question assertions that excluding self-driving trucks from this particular bill will result in less safe roads and that they don't merit special considerations going forward. we shall not allow such premature conclusions to stand in this committee's way of talking specifics and getting the answers we need have a more complete understanding of the safety, work force and policy i implications of highly automated trucks. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today and start this very important
conversation and i look forward to the testimony. >> we'll move now to our panel. we welcome you and look forward obviously to hearing from you. we would ask if you can confine your oral remarks to as close to 5 minutes as possible. your entire statement will be included as part of the record. we'll start on my left and your right with colonel scott hernandez. who's chief of colorado state patrol. we'll move then to mr. troy clark. ms. deborah hearseman who is the president and chief executive officer of the national safety counsel. chris spear, chief executive officer of the trucking administration. and hull, a treasurer of the international brother hood of teamsters. if you would proceed. >> absolutely. good morning. good morning, chairman thon and members of the committee.
thank you for holding this important hearing and inhadviting me here today to discuss the role automated vehicles will play in the future and how they may improve safety on our nation's highways. i'm the colonel of the colorado state patrol and pleased to lead members whose primary job is to save lives on our highways. 10 people have been killed on colorado roadways this year. we're committed to reducing the number of people killed eventually to zero. the enforcement community is excited to about the potential improvements to roadway saift possible with the deployment of autonomous vehicles. our goal is to reduce fatalities and injuries on our nation's highways and we know automated technology has already saved lives through the elimination of human error such as distracted driving and other unsafe driving habits. cbsa, which every state is a
member works to improve uniformity by bringing truck and bus regulatory safety agencies together with industry representatives to solve highway transportation problems. recognizing the tremendous potential benefits, we've long encouraged the deployment of safety technologies proven through the independent research to improve safety. even through preventing crashes, autonomous vehicles are the natural next progression in vehicle safety technology and enforcement community stands ready to assist in making sure that these technologies are deployed as seamlessly and as effect effectively as possible. in the late summer of 2016 auto approached the state of colorado expressing an interest in a interstate delivery in a
autonomous vehicle. with the fact that there are no laws or regulations prohibiting them too, include this scenario in colorado, we chose to partner with otto to insure safety remained paramount. and understood the government to learn from the process to participate in reasonable regulations in the future. during the early morning hours of october 20th, 2016, an autonomous vehicle delivered from fort collins, colorado to colorado springs in a level 4 autonomous demonstration. soon after entering southbound i 25, the driver placed the vehicle in autonomous mode and retreated to the space behind the driver passenger seat and travelled southbound for over 120 miles until the driver took over the controls and exited towards the terminal. it highlighted the future possibilities and use of
autonomous commercial vehicles. the colorado department of transportation took extensive measures to reduce the risk associated with this demonstration. we used california's autonomous vehicle laws and rules as guidance. preevent testing was monitored for assisting and achievement through specific safety performance gates to extensive onroad testing. it was deemed to be without a violation and the company underwent a safety audit to insure it had had appropriate level of safety management practices in place to safely operate in commerce. the state patrol received detailed weekly briefings on performance through required safety and testing protocols including testing of scenario plans for risk and fall back.
in an effort to insure it was completed in a safe manner, they escorted in a similar fashion in a motorcade or rolling special event, specifically monitoring safety calls and situational assessment. while we will still need to work towards total solutions, they made progress in understanding other governmental agencies, autonomous vehicle crash investigations, why cyber sku d security will be essential as this technology progresses. how they plan advancing the progress of procedures, understanding the development of a unique regulatory framework and how to better partner with are -- and when operated during the right loeksz, time and situation could reduce crash risk and traffic congestion.
additionally the demonstration has provided important information and experience to the state patrol and our partners responsible for establishing the necessary legal and regulatory framework. clearly technological advances in the past have saved lives and clearly technology will continue to save lives in the future. our experience in colorado makes it clear that it's time to begin planning in earnest. as this committee moves forward with legislation setting the national framework to guide the autonomous vehicles, we believe consideration must be given to cmb industry. we all have many question that need to be addressed as we work towards deployment of these technologies. many questions need to be answered before autonomous vehicles can be allowed to enter are the population.
that is the purpose of these questions -- the purpicist not to slow innovation or create road blocks to the technology. the enforcement community recognizes the safety benefits and welcomes any change to roadway safety. we must insure they understand the role of this technology and how it will impact cmb enforcement programs. we strongly encourage you to seek all facets, including what to do when vehicles are on the road. doing so will help avoid uncertainty for the enforcement community. i appreciate this opportunity to participate and the timely discussion on ought mated vehicles. thank you very much. >> mr. clark. >> good morning. i am honored to be here this morning to discuss an important
topic in our drooerks autonomous applications in commercial trucks. i'm chairman j chief executive officer of the manufacture of international trucks, diesel engines and military vehicles. it's located just outside chicago and has over 12,000 employees world wide. i'd tlielk plike to provide a qr view. our is as small, highly competitive industry which expects to produce around 25,000 vehicles this year. a small portion. our customers range from large fleets like j.b. hunt and penske with thousands of vehicles operating only one truck. we built trucks and buses via mass customization. each one taylored to meet the specific needs of a customer.
reliability and up front cost all impact future decisions. and a new truck ranges in price. in other words they represent major capitol investments and only generate revenue for our customers when they're up and running. our kismers invest in the latest safety technology to protect their assets as well as their most important human driver. they've been the creasing every year. we call these advance driver assistance systems, or a.d.a.s. and they offer quantum leaps in safety and environmental benefits. many serve as the building blocks to greater automation. they say see it as the
technology already in place. and we believe they'll help reduce human error which results in approximately 94% of all vehicle accidents. before we arrive at the future, our customers tell me they have much more immediate needs. they already have driverless trucks beutthat's because they have trouble recruiting and retaining drivers. as truck drivers, we don't hire trained drivers, our customers do. we will make much of that available to provide today's drivers with greater ease of use, comfort, safety, productivity and defish taens. factors i believe will attract more people to this important and noble profession. personally i believe they'll become more like airline pilots, even more highly skilld and trained than they are today. employed to authorize multiple
vehicle assets. the driver sitting in his or her seat is monitoring several platooning trucks, assuring the safe and secure operation of the trucks under their care. autonomous technology and not being created in the vacuum. it's producing vehicle to vehicle to allow cars and trucks to talk to one another. it as federal regulations are being drafted, we want to insure passenger and commercial vehicles are following similar safety and design standards for optimal compatibility on the highway, otherwise passenger cars may not be able to communicate effectively with large kmrlsurlshs and could cre blind spots that could create inadvertent hazards. development and validation cycles are long and penetration
and adoption rates take more time. we test trucks in many different states and climates. trucks cross multiple state lines daily and sometimes traverse the same state multiple times in one day. it's important to participate right now. it will allow us, truck manufacturers to validate systems that meet the future needs of our customers while minimally disrespecting the industry. large scale displacement of drivers is not likely to happen, especially in the short and medium term. we believe these technologies will improve safety and lower costs as well as lead to more efficient use of the existing infrastructure. in the commercial vehicle industry we have proven that regulation and technology can
work together. the time for these discussions is now and i applaud the committee for holding this so we can open the dialogue. >> thank you, mr. clark. welcome back to this committee. >> thank you. i strive every day to realize preventible deaths and we believe that all vehicle crash fatalities are preventible. yet today over 100 people die on our roadways every day in our vehicles and in crashes involving our vehicles. all vehicles. we can help reduce these statistics with technology. in 2004 kwlb the privilege to serve as a member and chairman of the national transportation safety board. during my 10 years there i saw
too many commercial motor vehicle crashes that could have been prevented. and could have been prevented by advanced technology. the ntsb first called on putting advanced technology in commercial vehicles in 1995 and it is an issue on their most wanted list today. today we've certainly gone beyond the level two technology that they had hoped for and envisioned back in 1995 and are talking about fully automated vehicles. i know that you all have read all of our testimony. there's a lot of facts and figures in my long written testimony. so i'd like to actually take my time with you this morning to share a personal story. last year i came home from a trip and my 10-year-old son met me that door and said -- that's not a good thing when you walk in the door from a trip and i said what happened to my car and
he took me to the garage and showed me. this picture on the screen is my car and yes, it's ironic the license plate says b safer on the. my husband was coming home to our house on a lower speed roadway and he was rear ended by another vehicle as he slowed to allow an emergency vehicle to turn into the firehouse. and my first questions to my husband were what happened? what were the circumstances? what was the driver doing? and unfortunately he didn't have a lot of good answers for me. he told me the gentleman was a little bit older and that there was a dog in the car. for the next couple of days i spent my time thinking what happened? how did this happen? could it have been prevented? did it involve distraction? fatig
fatigue? could it have been prevented. about three weeks later my husband was in a pretty somber mood and he told me he received a call from the insurance adjuster who's managing our claim and he had had just called the gentleman of the driver who was the jeep liberty who had had had hit our car. mr. norton called our house and when he asked to speak to mr. norton, his son said that he had had been killed in a crash. and the insurance adjuster said i thought there were no injuries in the crash and he said "my dad was killed on friday." and because we knew the information about the driver, we went to google like many of us do when we're trying to find something else and we found that mr. norton had had been in an intersection crash in his jeep liberty shortly before and this picture on the screen is the picture that was in the
newspaper. and again the same questions started to run through my head. what happened? how did this happen? who was at fault? could it have been prevented? did have something to do with what had had happened six weeks before? and as a safety professional who's spent decades working on how to prevent transportation events andinates, i realize that while it's important to understand why something happened, what's most important is to understand how we can prevent these things from occurring again. and we have the ability to prevent these fatalities that occur on our roads every day. hundred people every day. mr. norton was a father, a member of a community. probably church community. he had had an extended network. that happens 100 times every day. and we can do more, we can do better. we can address this issue and save lives.
if we are going to get to zero, we have to do it by looking lat of the fatalities and all of the things that we can do to prevent them. this conversation today begins that discussion. thank you. >> thank you, ms. hersman. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today. debbie's testimony really captures the importance of this issue and while she's a great contribution to the safety story, the american trucking association's federation has more than 30,000 member companies spanning all parts of the trucking industry from every size, type and class of motor carrier operation to truck makers, tech companies as well as insurers. that diverse membership is important for diskushzs like this one where the trucking industry's key role in our economy meets rapidly developing
technology. there are more than 7 million people employed in the trucking industry. and in trucking related jobs in the u.s., including -- 1 in 16 jobs in the u.s. are trucking related. or truck driving jobs are the top job in 29 states. truck drivers who ata is celebrating this week as part of national truck driver appreciation week with more than 70% of the weight tonnage. they help deliver products to communities in every corner of the country every day. stores, factories, schools, hospitals and as you're seeing today they're on the front lines delivering supplies to hoto hel people. they will be a part of the industry for the long hall. while some people use the terms
autonomous and driverless interchangeably, they believe autonomous vehicles will have an important role for the drivers. just like airplanes, while navigating the city scapes and handling the customer pick ups and deliveries. the trucking industry spends over $9 billion annually on safety including technology enhancements. to help inhad sure drivers and passengers of all vehicles make it safely to their destination. the technology we're discussing today is the next step in the evolution of the types of safety technology the trucking industry is already inthe vesting in. it's becoming more robust in commercial and passenger vehicles. to fully maximize the safety of beb if thes, it makes sense to provide protections and ince incentives in commercial vehicles, not just passenger
vehicles. this includes federal preemption to insure they do not impede interstate commerce. it omso includes the ability to exceed exemptions so that new technology can be developed and tested in commercial and noncommercial vehicles. we're at a critical moment in autonomous technology. there are many questions to be answered, including those about cyber security. including trucking operations and how vehicles will interact with one another, as well as infrastructure. what is cloo eris that those questions should be answered for commercial and passenger vehicles that same time. as you draft legislation intended to doctor's many of these questions, ideas rr respectfully ask the committee consider the following points. first, insure the federal government has the sole authority to regulate automated
vehicle technology. the rules of the road must be the same acrasoss the country i order to maintain a free flow of goods. we service the entire country and it needs uniform rules to do that. we believe federal agencies must commit to both commercial and passenger vehicles. using existing regulatory exemptions to allow manufacturers and technology companies to test and develop new systems. federal agencies must cord ate the their own missions with respects to automalted vehicles. we believe the benefits would be enhanced using the 5.9 giggau hurts safety spectrum. vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure systems will fully unlock the potential to
improve sarvths reduce traffic congestion and emissions. and to take no action that could harm the initiatives the department of transportation is pursuing with this spectrum. finally we thurj federal gumpt consider the existing slate of federal motor carrier safety legislations and how they might be impacted by regulations as well as how regulations can improve safety, productivity and the environment. this should include the impact of automated vehicle use on csa scores, liability and inhad insurance regulations, speed visitors and hours of service rules. this isn't to say these regulations should be changed. the dot should change how it will impact the industry it
regulates in order to minimize disrupshz and confusion as it dis -- i thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important subject and look forward to questions. >> senator peters, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i'm the general secretary treasurer of the teamsters un n union. teamsters could be delivering anything from bakery goods to your latest online package or getting you to work obtime and safely transporting your dwids kids to school. while nearly 600,000 of the 1.4 million members turn a key in
the truck to start their work day, the issues don't just impact those who drive vehicles for a living. a future that includes partial and fully autonomous vehicles could change the fuch of work in our country. planning for the future and incorporating new technologies into our member's daily lives is not new to me or my union. in addition to my duties as general secretary treasurer, for over 20 years, also served as leader for the package division and i ran the daily interactions with ups under the single largest collecting bargaining. they're inextricably tied to new technology. it's changed extraordinarily over time and teamsters have been in the thick of it.
while insuring that workers are guaranteed a right to avoid harassment and to always feel safe on the job. my career has shown me that new technologies can exist in an environment where workers are still taken care of. burt it takes strong and aggressive action to make sure that happens. they have the potential to change the transportation industry as we know it. that can be for better or worse depending on work they gave. it's incumbent upon this committee to insure workers are not left behind in this process. that they're not treated as guinea pigs. the issues are fundamentally different and potentially more culamitous than those facing passenger cars. it consequences for getting this wrong could be deadly for
workers and other drivers on the road. the public discussion in congress has tended to focus on the impact of small personal cars on our daily lives, increasing mobility for the disabled and eliminating congestion in our cities. these are important but taking a cookie cutter approach and applying it to heavy vehicles is reckless. i have yet to hear a serious discussion of how we're going to make hear how it's going to not insure the countless workers also occupying the same space or how we make sure the rules would be updated the moment one of those new vehicles is put on the road and we haven't gotten to the largest issue of them all. these issues should be considered delivererately and
carefully. i urge you to consider these responsibilities with a heavy dose of realism. when you hear manufacturers tell you strong safety metrics will turn if to effortless deployment on the road, i urge you to recall some of the other issues we've worked on this year. we've spearheaded investigations into volkswagen cheating customers, takata knowingly sold defective airbags that have claimed the lives of american citizens. market forces did not convince them not to cheat and push the envelope past what is safe and that's the same mentality in a trucking space where margins are tight and competition is fierce. the fear of many is that absent strong action and guidance from this committee and others, a new generation of autonomous vehicles will provide limitless opportunity for the same pattern
of reckless behavior. there's so many impacts to consider. unecwhiched, this could open up our citizens to having privacy breached and personal data sold. tracking would be intertwine would collective bargaining agreements and work place policies. the truck driver will have to think about having his rig hacked and used as a next weapon and millions of americans can have their paychecks decreased because half their job has been automated away and their worker thinks it can get away with not paying the wage it once did. i look forward to working with the committee to inshuure, priorities and concerns of working families continue in this debate but especially when considering commercial motor vehicles, it is more important to get it done correctly, rather than just get done quickly. thank you and i look forward to your questions.
>> thank you, mr. hall and thanks again all of you for your testimony. we'll have an opportunity to have members of the committee ask some questions. and i'll start with colonel hernandez. do you think autonomous vehicle technology can advance safety for trucks? >> absolutely. as we have its t already has in many ways. but witnessing what happened on october 20th, it was cloo there were some advantages and a couple of those were that the hours and the demonstration was at night when there was reduced traffic and so that was both for safety concerns and will be in the future. so just the timing possibilities. and it was like i said a level 4 demonstration and what that
meant was that there was still a driver there to get the vehicle on the highway and into the terminal area. so that driver was involved in that process. but without a doubt i believe there are some advantages. i think the key is we're all at the table to discuss this together in the through the process. and make sure that commercial vehicles are not left out. i think that the fact they've already demonstrated this puts us behind and shouldn't be left further behind in the process. thank you. >> ms. hersman, the crashes you mentionred horrible and yet could have been prevented. since trucks are involved in some of the most jarring examples you've sited, would you
say accelerating the deployment of automated trucks should provide significant safety benefits? >> yes. with proper testing and controls, i think this is the game changer when it comes to highway fatalities. advanced technology can solve many problems we've struggled with for decades and i think it's important to have the conversations, whether it's data sharing, testing protocols, engagement of all of the right stake holders, these are all things we need begin to discuss. >> thanks. mr. clark, is there any reason to think that when it comes to automated vehicles that federal safety standards governing core automated technologies, things like censors and radar should be fundamentally different for trucks and cars and develop at different speeds? >> the fact of the malter is the basic sensor technology and some
of that you put on the truck is similar to what is in cars. however they weigh more, they take longer to stop, they have high centers of gravity. one of the reason we needed a vance at the rate we are is some of the solutions that allow the heavy vehicle to perform in a similar manner to a light vehicle have yet to be engineered. we need data from real-life in-hands use by real customers to understand what the proper validation processes and practices will be or what the engineering problems are we need to solve. we see no reason why commercial trucks should move forward at a different speed or time table an light vehicles. >> mr. spear, this appears to be an instance in which many trucking companies and manufacturers are pushing for more federal regulation of the industry. could you explain the reeszen
why you think more leadership from the federal government will excel this the. >> i wouldn't say more regulation but one seamless federal standard and that comes from federal leadership. we would push heavily for that, as opposed to 50 different regulatory regimes. 50% of the freight was in your opening remarks. we cross state lines every day. it's a reality that our drivers face every day and compliance with multiple state regimes would be very disruptive to the economy, to these companies and i think it would be a jobs issue over time if we're not able to move freight in a productive way ska safe way and obviously in a profitable way. so having one seamless standard at the federal level is what we would advocate and certainly a much better approach than a patchwork of conflicting state laws.
>> thank you. >> senator peters. >> thank you to each of our witnesses for outstanding testimony today as we begin this very important discussion about trucks and ought onomy. i couldn't agree with you more that we need get this right, there's a great deal of potential in this technology. we have to do it right, be thoughtful about it and that's why we've spent so much time on this issue related to automobiles. hours and hours of conversations with stake holders. but as everyone has said trucks are different than automobile said. one of those differences deals with the it employment impact, which i think you've stated very clearly and mr. spear you mentioned it's the top job in over 20 states. so folks who we represent in our communities could potentially have a significant impact and one we have to think very carefully about the impact it's
going to have on our communities in our state. in your testimony you thds ata believes the driver will retain an important role in trucking, even in automated or if i may paraphrase, or i think that's in your written testimony. i think we all can agree that we don't want to see large scale job losses. but i didn't see in your testimony any data, studies, best practices or business plans that address how a company operating today is prepared to address driver displacement. mr. clark mentioned that drivers would still have a role in platooning, as an example. of how a driver would be in the business mobil. but even that means the displacement of driver, if you're platooning trucks, that means you have several trucks platooning together. normally you have several trucks with a driver in the front. now you may just have one driver in front of a platoon. so there are differences. so my question the you, mr.
spear, and certainly you, mr. clark, as well, what are you doing internally to prepare for possible driver displacement as a result of highly automated trucks? >> quite frankly, we don't view it as a displacement issue because we don't believe level five, no steering wheel, no pedals is imminent. what we're really focused on is driver assist technologies, not driverless. and if that's acceptable in this committee, then we're really talking about how do we enable drivers to be safer, more productive, their equipment more environmentally friendly, less congestion. these are all measurable returns that our fleets will invest in and are good for drivers as well. we'd like them to be less fatigued, better rested. if technology can play a role in that, that's good for the entire motoring public. but in terms of driver displacement, we already have a 50,000 driver shortage as it stands. if that trend continues, it will double in nine years. we have to hire over 960,000 employees over the next decade. into this industry.
so we're pushing hard to bring more talent into the industry. that's what our fleets are preparing for, not for the displacement. to the degree it is driver assist technology, we welcome that. in ways that we can measure better productivity and safety, lower emissions, less congestion, those are all things that we'd be very interested, and that's why we feel trucks need to be part of this legislation. driverless, level five that's decades away. and it's just not even in the scope of our fleet's vision at this point. but i think level two and three are. so with that, i think driver assist is much more reasonable and why we're not concerned about displacement at this time. >> you say that driverless technology for trucks is decades away. yet for automobiles it's just a few years away. why the difference? >> i think i would agree with my colleague mr. hall. he's struggling to find an argument where you are going to
have a driverless truck navigate -- a scenario where it's going to do a drop-off or a pickup. we wouldn't argue with that, because we think the driver is still going to be in the seat. it's really the long haul where you're going to see a lot of the value come from driver assist technology, level two and three. we don't believe that's going to be a threat. we think drivers are going to play an intricate role in the cityscapes, the pickup, the deliveries. but in terms of the long haul where you can see efficiencies to lowering fuel burn, lowering emissions, better safety by having connectivity between trucks, cars, infrastructure, those are all good things that are really going to improve safety, in our opinion. so we don't look at it as a threat, certainly not in the near term. >> mr. hall, you obviously have a deferent perspective. i'd like to have an opportunity to hear a little bit more about your perspective after mr. spears' testimony.
>> well, i was certainly happy to hear his testimony. but, you know, we look at this as -- first of all, let me be clear. our union has always been willing to talk about new technology. if you look at the workplaces that we represent, they look very unsimilar to warehousing and all these other different aspects of industries that we represent. they're much different than they were when i began as a teamster. but there is very much of a difference here when we're talking about having an $80,000 pound vehicle barreling down the road. we are not opposed to looking at some of the changes that we have heard here. but to have a tractor trailer going down the road without a driver, which is what i believe is coming, then i think there is lots of reasons why we should be concerned about that. and not the least of which is cyber security. no matter what technology you put into these trucks, we've seen already in areas around the
world where large trucks have been used to essentially attack the citizens of those particular areas. so that's one of the things that i think we have a lot of work to do. before we can go to this -- before we can advance with the larger trucks. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. senator peter wicker? >> mr. spear, what do you say to that cyber threat argument that mr. hall raised? >> i think it's a serious issue and i think the auto industry and the trucking industry are -- very committed in ensuring there is nobody out there that wants their equipment to be compromised. i think putting together very strong protocols in concert with federal policies. we work very regularly not only with d.o.t. and nhtsa, but also with dhs. i'm in agreement with mr. hall. i don't think you want a tank truck that's driverless in an isis world. that is not something we're advocating. going back to the earlier discussion about driver
displacement, that is not something we believe is in the foreseeable future. but where we can use technology to enhance the safety and the productivity of the fleets and the driver, we're all in on that. >> so just as we guard against cyberthreats with airlines and in other aspects of our economy, we can answer that question with the trucking question. is that your position? >> yeah, i think so. we work very closely with dhs, fbi, volpe, been working with the d.o.t. on testing. now the information sharing advisory committee are now accepting our companies to be in that realm. so now you're going to have auto industry and the trucking industry comparing best practice to make certain there is a seamless protocol. >> well, let me get to another couple of topics.
mr. spear and mr. hall, do you agree that we do have an impending truck driver shortage? is that your position, mr. spear? and is that your position, mr. hall? >> it is. >> it is. >> okay. mr. spear, it seems to me based on your testimony that actually going to a level 2 or 3, you're saying that's really not going to be an answer to the trucker shortage because we're still going to need basically the same number of truck drivers. is that correct? >> it's not a clearly defined answer. however, i like to use the analogy of generational gaps. i can usually fix a lot of things on my phone and laptop, but it's easier to hand them to my kids. they can get it done a heck of a lot quicker than i can. what we would like to see in terms of the new generation of drivers and technicians is to speak to that generation. this technology does that.
and to make trucking cool, to make trucking attractive, tech savvy in this generation, i think is a good fit. i think we're ushering in a lot of new talent that's going to be able to really cope with this technology and make it work to the benefit of society. so we believe in that, and maybe more indirect, but we think that is an attractive element in terms of bringing new talent into our industry long-term. >> okay, i see. we can add to the work force. let me ask about your statement. on the 5.9 gigahertz safety spectrum. if we don't get that, if we don't get the exclusive use of that as your testimony advocates, what would that mean? >> i think it would be a huge setback. i'm a bit more bullish on this issue than others. we work closely with the national safety council on this issue and feel that having connectivity between cars, trucks and infrastructure is in my opinion the secret sauce.
because now you don't have cars cutting off trucks. two-thirds of the accidents that involve trucks are caused by passenger vehicles, driver behavior, speeding, texting. so connectivity plays a key role as that becomes more of a problem, eliminating congestion. these are huge issues that gain from connectivity through that 59. if we don't have that, you're simply going to be working off of other applications, bluetooth for instance. we look a lot at platooning in our industry, trucks trailing trucks. that's done basically on a bluetooth platform. i'm not saying that's a bad platform to work from, but a much more robust and safer platform would certainly be a 59 and preserving that for safety would be something that we would advocate. >> thank you. mr. clark, we have information in our committee brief about advances in our competitor countries in this regard.
germany, united kingdom, south korea, even china are working hard at this. who's ahead of whom in this area and what can we learn from the experiences of the other countries? and if you can touch on the connectivity issue that mr. spear touched on. >> yes, thank you, senator. the connectivity issue would endorse comments of mr. spear. look, connected vehicles see much further than any driver. connected vehicles can be prepared to avoid circumstances and certainly engage the driver in ways that are not possible today. seeing miles ahead to weather, road conditions. congestion, other type of circumstances. it is the secret sauce and really is one of the keys to unlocking the potential of this technology. >> how are our global competitors doing? >> you know, this is as -- in some of the trade journals you may have read, this is the space race of our industry, basically. there is a number of technologies that are coming together and very interestingly,
a number of those technology leads come out of the united states. the sensor technology, the a.i. machine and learning technology that is necessary to take advantage of this, the very sophisticated digital three dimensional light arm maps that are running in the background and supporting this software. these are all areas where we have the edge. >> we're ahead of germany, united kingdom and south korea and china in this regard? >> in the basic we are components we are. >> that's a good thing. >> it is. what we need to do is continue to press forward with the integration of these into real platforms, putting these into real service so we can collect the data to allow us to do the analytics to bring for the right type of regulations and applications. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator wicker. i would agree. i think in terms of the transformative effects and impacts of this technology, the closest thing in recent memory would be the internet. i think this is going to transform the way we do things. i would concur with the
statements been made about truckers. just anecdotally, trucking companies in my state cannot find enough drivers that is a real shortage out there. so thank you, senator wicker. next up is senator young. >> thank you, chairman. i really enjoyed this conversation. it's very important to my home state of indiana where we have a robust logistics industry and a very serious shortage of truck drivers to keep that industry going. i think we might have a big part of the solution being presented today. so in 2015, there were over 35,000 lives taken for one reason or another on our nation's highways. over 800 of those were on highways in my home state of indiana. nhtsa's estimate that as many as 94% of crashes can be attributed to human driver error. so you can see the potential
will avs bring in terms of lives saved. so another big benefit to hoosiers. that's not the complete story. avs can change the lives of individuals who today rely on friends, family and others to drive themselves around, to drive them around our communities. you think of the blind, the disabled, the elderly and others who could have a far greater quality of life when avs allow them to become more independent but also more integrated into the day-to-day lives of our communities. the national council on disact noted in a previous hearing that we held that automated vehicles hold great promise to advance social inclusion by offering people with disabilities independent mobility to get to schools, jobs, and all places that americans go each day. to get to the point where avs can provide such a societal benefit, congress will have to allow the technology to advance, for both vehicles below 10,000 pounds, and most likely for
vehicles above 10,000 pounds. i'm afraid if we bifurcate the regulatory environment on small and large vehicles, we're going delay these life saving and life changing benefits that av technology can bring to all americans. mr. spear, regarding the threat oai, or automation becoming net job losses for our economy, you have predicted that truckers will be more like airline pilots. that's sort of a compelling thought. i think it offers promise to our future truck drivers or operators to work in a profession where they add more value or earn higher wages and forth, at least as you've styled it. could you expand on that? i think the popular perception is when you get on a commercial airline, the pilot is controlling the plane the entire time. and we know that's not the case.
what would the role of the trucker be as we look into the future? >> i think it would be very similar. i know this plays a little bit off of mr. hall's testimony too, because we share that concern. what many people don't see are the pickups, the deliveries, the navigating of the cityscapes. there's some really complex maneuvering of this equipment that takes a lot of talent behind the wheel to make that happen. with all the variables that they're dealing with, they're not automated. they're not level 5. unless we're going to remove all human error from all vehicles on the road, you're going to need drivers in the seat handling 80,000 pound vehicles in our opinion. very similar concept to airline pilots. it's the takeoffs, the taxiways, the landings, they're all handled by the pilot, in control. it's really the long haul. and where that automatic pilot comes on, where you see some of
the values of that technology take over. the pilot is always there, can take over if conditions arise that warrant that. same stands true for drivers and trucks. >> i haven't heard the airline industry discuss eliminating pilots and going fully automated. >> and they could right now. i don't want to put in a plug for my former employer. but working with honeywell for eight years, you all fly, there are pilots in the cockpit. >> right. >> those cockpits, the automation that's in these planes can take off, fly, and land all on their own. >> over the years i would say we've had an increase in the number of pilots. so our airline industry used to involve more pilot sort of intervention along the way. i would also indicate we saw an increase, at least for a period of time in membership in their unions as well. so that's notable. could you discuss platooning?
because i'm not entirely sure what the role of the operator would be in the platooning process. >> platooning, it would involve a concept where the driver would be in the lead truck and that pursuant trucks would follow, possibly without a driver eventually. but up to two or three trailer trucks would follow the lead driver and they would be connected. right now that's being tested through bluetooth technology. that's why we feel the 59 would be a much better platform to connect vehicle, because then you can include connecting cars. so the accident that ms. hersman put up on the slide there, if you have cars and trucks talking to one another, you really start to mitigate risk. >> this strikes me as really meaning full work as you think about the future of trucking and one where we might attract more people into the labor market. so thank you so much. >> thank you, senator young. senator blumenthal?
>> thanks, mr. chairman, and thank you, and senator peters for your work on the legislation. that raises some of the issues that bring us here today. i think we need rules and regulations in this area, rules that will guarantee safety. i was deeply disappointed by the guidance issued yet by nitsa nhtsa which struck me as anemic, and in fact a giveaway to the industry. and it could result in lives lost unless we have enforceable rules and regulations that protect the traveling public, not just the folks who may be behind the wheel but also passengers in vehicles out on the roads today. driving continues to be one of the deadliest activities. as you observed, ms. hersman,
and thank you for all your good work in this area. the reason the framework issued yesterday concerned me so greatly is that it depends on voluntary self-assessment by the industry as opposed to mandatory rules. it was termed by one report even less burdensome than the voluntary one issued under the obama administration. the net effect would be to leave enforcement virtually toothless. so i am putting to you the question, to all of the witnesses here today, isn't it necessary to have mandatory rules and regulations enforced by the government, by the department of transportation or some enforcer to protect the traveling public? >> i think that's absolutely true. there has to be -- we've seen
too many examples of -- and that's one of our concerns, is whether or not there's going to be the kind of oversight that's necessary to protect the american public. we have seen too many case, where for example in the case of volkswagen, everyone assume they'd were doing the right things. while it's a different issue with emission, it is still the same issue. if a company is allowed to produce vehicles, whether it is automobiles orb in particular when it's 80,000-pound rigs, then there must be oversight. that's why i think it's premature to think that these commercial vehicles should be included at this time. that is not to say that -- and you know, i want to -- i am hopeful that we're all willing to guarantee that we're going to protect all those drivers' jobs. but we're certainly open to talking about anything that improves safety. i am concerned.
when i know the issues that have happened where the driver was killed, that we just saw a report yesterday about, when uber spent lots of money in the city of pittsburgh and making sure that they measured down to the centimeter every street in that city, but yet one of the vehicles went the wrong way down a one-way street. that is -- on a one-way street, maybe there is a way to control that. we've got to be -- we've got to have more thought, not that there's not going to be a time, as i have listened here and agreed with with some of my colleagues. i understand we are going to see some changes, but there has to be a lot more work done. >> does anyone on the panel think the nhtsa guidance offers an adequate basis to go forward? >> i wouldn't say, senator, that it's an end-all issuance of guidance.
i think we're heading down the path where you're going have that framework. >> it's hardly a robust first step, would you agree? >> i would say that it's a first step, and that's better than nothing. >> it ought to be more robust? >> it will be a lot more. we are going to have a framework. we are moving in that direction. but at the same time, the only reason we're having this discussion today is because innovation is driving this outcome, not regulation. >> but the rules are as important as the technology, would you agree? >> i agree. i think it's getting the federal government on a good foundation to where it has great understanding of visibility where this technology is going to take us. in my testimony, we advocate a federal role, sole authority. >> and the rules have been to be enforceable. >> absolutely. >> and they should be enforced. >> and i think that's direction we're going. and that's why i think trucks have to be a part of it. >> but the rules have to keep pace with technology, correct? >> i think eventually they will. but yes you're correct.
>> the eventually part is what concerns me. because in the meantime, there will be a lot more deaths and injuries if the rules and enforceability of those rules fail to keep pace, correct? >> i also think the same is true uif you get the rules wrong. i think excludeing the commercial industry would be a big detriment to safety. i think incluexclusivity and getting this right from the start, we all share the road. i think having a federal role, sole authority overseeing it, not a patch work of state laws, would be the pest approach. >> but relying on voluntary self-assessments and foregoing public oversight and enforcement i think is a mistake that would discredit the goal that we share
of making technology available and accessible to as many people as possible and increasing safety through the use of technology. i think that revisiting this guidance is something that has to be done, and i hope it will be done. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. senator lee? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thanks to all of you who have joined us today as witnesses. as we consider the issue of autonomous vehicles this month, it's becoming more and more clear that the future of american transportation is inextricably intertwined with the advent of automated technology. and i think it's therefore really important that we think about this issue a lot and we move forward with it with an eye toward advancing it and allowing it to be developed. automation is inevitable, and i think it would be neither wise
nor appropriate nor necessary for congress to stifle the advancement of this technology. at issue in this debate is not whether congress should restrict or block or slow down the development of this technology. but it's rather how congress can best establish a regulatory framework, one that encourages and facilitates the development of life-saving technology, technology that will make the american people safer and more productive. the research and development of autonomous commercial motor vehicles is i think critical to this type of innovation and should therefore be included in any legislation that we put forward this month. now, according to the u.s.
department of labor's bureau of labor statistics, trucking transportation occupations account for more work-related fatalities than perhaps any other profession. it's my understanding that 87% of truck-related collisions are caused by human error, not because people who were driving them are bad. they are, to the contrary, well trained and everything. but humans make mistakes and human error can inevitably lead to fatalities. so i have a question. i'll start with ms. hersman. given that trucks are involved in a disproportionate share of fatal vehicle crashes, wouldn't automated trucking technology make sense and have the potential to have kind of an out sized benefit for american drivers? >> yes. technology has the potential to be that game changer when it comes to reducing fatalities. there is technology available
today that we see can do this. rear end collisions are a great example. three times more fatal if you're involved in a rear end collision with a truck, with a commercial vehicle than a passenger car. we can all understand the physics of that. automatic emergency braking, vehicle-to-vehicle technology can help with that. automated vehicles are an extension of some of those technologies. >> so in light of that fact, why would it make sense for us to put them on two different tracks, one that we facilitate, promote and allow for the development in the case of passenger vehicles, but not in the area of commercial vehicles? >> we don't think it does make sense because in situations where we have put passenger cars on a fast track and we haven't addressed commercial vehicle, electronic stability control is a good example. after there were some issues with rollovers involving ford explorers, this committee required that electronic
stability be mandated. that occurred in the 2012 year. we're looking at not having that on commercial vehicles for many more years. that doesn't make sense. we need one level of safety for everyone who is on the roadways. >> colonel hernandez, the house's autonomous vehicle legislation is clearly limited to addressing vehicle design standards that will be administered by nhtsa, just as they have always done for both cars and for cmvs. i realize there's a lot of interest and debate over the ultimate operations of autonomous cmvs. but the current bills don't address that. they're assuring everyone's safety during r&d. that being said, colonel, would there be any reason to delay the fundamental safety framework for automated cmv design? >> no, not at all. i think that we already saw a live example in colorado where it's jumped out in front.
it would be a lot better for us in the enforcement community to be able to be united and ahead of it as it relates to commercial motor vehicles. you know, we have many questions that are the same in the enforcement community, such as how to investigate a crash. the advantage for us to understand how these technologies work and work with the industry to learn how to better and reasonably regulate and enforce laws. we'll have a much better advantage than separating the two, in my opinion. >> sounds like a considerable public safety game. thank you, sir. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. i would point out for those who think that the nhtsa guidance isn't strong enough, that would argue to me for why we ought to have all these covered by the legislation.
senator markey? >> thank you, mr. chairman. for all of the witnesses, just please answer yes or no. do you believe that this committee as it actively works on legislation to promote the deployment of autonomous vehicles, that we should also create policies to help those working americans that will lose their jobs because of these emerging technologies? colonel hernandez? >> yes, i believe that should be considered. >> yes. >> yes. >> no. >> mr. hall? >> yes, except that hopefully we're going to have a situation where we're not going to lose jobs. as i have listened to various speakers talk about here today. >> there's always disruption. when they invented the talkies, all the piano players in the silent movie theaters lost their jobs.
time moves on and you've got to make sure you've got a plan in place to make sure the protection is there. these vehicles are obviously already computers on wheels. they're going to continue to accelerate in that direction as technology deploys. but obviously there are going to be vast opportunities for cyberthreats to be launched against these vehicles since they'll all be computers for all intents and purposes. mr. hall do, you believe that we should proactively develop robust mandatory regulations so that these vehicles are protected against cyber attacks as they are moving down the streets of our country? >> absolutely. that's one of the biggest concerns that i have.
as i said earlier, the teamster's union has worked all with companies and industries around all over this country on innovation and to make companies more competitive. but in this case, and particularly the case of the cybersecurity, it's terrifying to me to think that we've got tractor-trailers rolling down the road that can be hacked. and to say that they can't be in today's world -- and that's one of the things that i think there has to be more information, more studies to ensure that we're not going to have that issue. because no one thought we would have the credit card issue we've had in the past week where millions of people's information has become public. we didn't think -- >> i agree with you 100%. in fact, we were warned about all these things, that they can happen. it's not as though equifax didn't know it could happen.
it's not as though the auto industry right now doesn't know that these vehicles can be hacked. it's all there. i agree with you, mr. hall. do you agree with that mr. spear, that we need mandatory robust protections that are built in as rules of the road going forward? >> i think that's where we're headed. as we just got done discussing with senator blumenthal, the guidance may be deficient. but it's a first step towards something much more robust. this legislation that you're considering is a remarkable first step toward formalizing the federal role. so i think that's exactly where we're headed. and we know this is reality. it's not just cars and trucks. it's a cross the board. >> thank you. i appreciate it. and that's why i've introduced the legislation the spy car act that directs nhtsa to establish cybersecurity protections for all vehicles. i've introduced it with senator
blumenthal and others on the committee. and i just think we should be considering that at the same time we're talking about this new era unfolding. and finally, on the issue of privacy, obviously since they are computers on wheels, there's going to be a vast amount of information about all americans that's going to be gathered as they are moving around this country. do you think that we should be ensuring that this information which is gathered by the auto companies or by others about all of our individual habits, where we go, what we do, all the information that can be gathered as these computers are being used on tv should be able to be reused and resold as information without the permission of the family? colonel hernandez? >> i really don't know that i'm qualified to answer that question.
i think that perhaps that information may be out there with cell phones and others now, but i think that's something that perhaps -- >> do you have a view, mr. hall, whether or not we should be providing privacy protections for people to make sure that information is protected? >> i do think that. there's no question that we continue to see -- i mean, we're talking about protecting people's privacy involves a lot of things, including getting involved in -- when you're talking about getting into someone's personal lives, you're talking about their personal finances. you're talking about a lot of issues we have seen recently. >> thank you to the witnesses today. colonel hernandez, welcome to the committee. i know you have served colorado state patrol over 30 years, and we're grateful for your services and leadership.
thank you very much. >> thank you. >> colonel hernandez, i don't know if you have marked the calendar or not, but february 19th is an important day in colorado. it's president's day. it's a monday. it's also a great ski weekend. monday night you know what happens. everybody is coming back to the airport. they're coming back home. they're going back to the front range. how many new tunnels through the eisenhower tunnel do you think it would take for us to adequately provide capacity for the number of vehicles that we'd see? you don't have to answer that question. >> it would take many, many new tunnels. >> we're just simply not going do it. do you see vehicle to vehicle technology as a way to manage traffic through those choke points like that president's day ski traffic through the eisenhower tunnel? >> i believe it may be the only way to manage that type of traffic through there. >> i agree with you too. and i also want to commend you and your leadership again. and talk about some of the toughest things that we've seen over the past several years. trooper cody donahue was killed
on i-25 by a vehicle that didn't move over when he was assisting another crash on the side of the road. vehicle-to-vehicle technology, autonomous technology, that would be used to assist in this type of a situation, perhaps, to avoid that type of accident. could it be used that way? >> absolutely. the technology's there to be able to do that. and i believe that in that case, very hard on the agency and hard on me, hard on the family. it could have been avoided. and i think that through this technology, it absolutely could have been avoided because there is a prior crash. and so often these are secondary crashes. and that takes the lives of many people as that secondary crash. and i think that's one of the huge advantages to this type of technology, both in cars and in commercial vehicles. >> and so i think one of the challenges we have is not just
whether we get there, if we get there, but it's how we do it and the way that manages safety, how we do it in a way that manages an uncertain question for people in this country. one out of every 20 jobs in colorado is a truck driving job. i grew up in a small plains town of eastern colorado. we have a lot of truck drivers there. one came up and said did you see the truck delivery that you talked about in your opening comments? i said yeah, wasn't it great? and his response to me, a gentleman i've known my entire life said yeah, what's going happen to me? he is a truck driver. i think we as policy make. >> we in industry, we have to figure out how we're going to answer that question of what's going to happen to them. the answer isn't going to be fewer jobs and opportunities. the answer is always with the innovations that we have been able to achieve in this country, we're going to have progress, innovation and more jobs than we've ever had before. but we've got to be able to figure out how to say that in a what they is helping people see that, understand that, and know that they're going to be okay. because until we can answer that question, you know what? you're going to be okay and here's how, there is going to be
an uncertainty, and it's going to be an unsettling part of people's lives and families. so we need help in being able to answer that question. because the answer isn't there is going to be less. the answer is there is going to be more and we're going to create more jobs as a result. the secondary impacts are going to be phenomenal. but how do we make sure we can articulate to a very uncertain american populace going forward. so i'm excited about the future that we have here. mr. spear, one of the question is have for you, though, yesterday i had a hearing with the national laboratory system, national renewable laboratory in denver. some of the other laboratory systems around the country. and we talked about the 11.million miles of high resolution data that fleet partners across the country have been able to help work them and provide them. how do we get the information we need using some of the national 8s we have like the labs and others to really move forward on a system of autonomous vehicles and the information, the safety information we need to make this work? >> i alluded to it a bit in my testimony.
and i used fcc as a primary example. it's not just d.o.t. and it in salt. it's s.e.c. it's dhs on cyber. it's also epa on emissions. there are a whole host of benefactor agencies at the federal level that really need to be more squarely at the table on this. labs included. we work a lot of d.o.d. not just on cyber, but logistics and testing there are a lot of good things that can be done on military bases to advance this technology to the states and localities are a proving ground. we don't discriminate between either one of them, but we welcome everybody to the table. because i think the more -- inclusivity that you have the more robust this platform is going to be. i think the inclusivity of the labs and the agencies, not just d.o.t. need to be squarely at the table and drive the outcome. if the legislation can speak to that, i think that would be a very good thing. >> well, thank you very much for
all of your time and testimony today. colonel hernandez, again, thank you. >> thank you, senator gardner. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the panelists. very engaging, important discussion today. so mr. spear, let me start with you and make sure i understand what i'm hearing today, is that you would be comfortable if we passed federal legislation that only went to a level 2 authority? in other words, what i mean by that, it limited any type of future technology for specifically to driver assisted technology level 2, and we didn't open the door to a level 5 driverless technology for commercial trucks. that correct? >> senator, let me stipulate that i'm not suggesting the committee, you know, earmark it to level 2 or 3. that's the reality of where we see things, driver assist, not
level 5 driverless. so if that's acceptable foreseeable future, that's acceptable to us. it's actually a catalyst to a lot of beneficial things to safety productivity. but levels 2 and 3 are really where we see the technology for the foreseeable future. if the legislation speaks so that, that's a decision i don't all make. but we just don't believe displacement, or level 5, no steering wheel, no pedals is in the foreseeable future. that's kind of the world and perspective that we're approaching this. >> if we were to limit it to level 2 and level 3, because you don't see that in the foreseeable future as driverless, and we want to make sure that we're addressing that worker displacement, but also the cybersecurity issues that we all have concerns about and understanding it, as well as addressing the safety on the roads, you would be comfortable with that federal legislation? >> absolutely. >> mr. hall, would you be comfortable to that federal legislation if we were to limit it particularly when it comes to
commercial trucks to just driver-assisted technology and understanding the evolution of that driver-assisted technology for commercial trucks? >> well, i certainly would be. i would be happy to see that type of limitation on it. by the same token, i also think that we have to address the many safety concerns before we make any of these changes. >> and so when you talk about the many safety concerns, that is including the worker safety concerns as well as the discussion we've had today, correct? >> correct. >> okay. so let me just say this is an important discussion. and i think for all of us the challenge is going to be how we balance the emergence of this new technology that mr. spear you said is happening. there's a demand for it. it is going to happen whether we are part of this discussion or not. and how we balance that with worker protections and worker placement, because the last thing -- i can't speak for all of my colleagues but i would imagine is that worker displacement.
it would harm our economy. it would harm our workers. it would harm our jobs. that's not what we're trying to do here. there has to be a balance. that we find. and that's what i'm hoping everybody will come to the table and help us at a federal level find that balance to work together to have not only the ability to embrace this new technology, but address the worker issue and worker displacement to make sure that does not happen. so do you think there's an ability to work together to do that, mr. hall and mr. spear? >> absolutely. >> i think there's an ability to do that. >> thank you. the reason why i am really excited and interested in this space because there is a lot of work that is happening in nevada right now as you well know with this new technology both for autonomous vehicles as well as for driver assisted trucks. i think it is the future and we
need to embrace it, but we need to put those guardrails in place for protections that we've all talked about today. i know just in nevada, the regional transportation commission of washoe county right now is currently testing and taking data on autonomous buses that will move many of my constituents back and forth throughout the region. and anyone that's followed this issue knows that autonomous vehicles and the future of transportation relies on technology and connectivity. that's why i am excited to be able to be introducing legislation to promote smart cities and communities. my bill will ensure that the federal government provides the seed money. for public/private partnerships to integrated transportation systems in rural and communities throughout the country. my colleague is lead sponsor on this. i'm very excited to work with him. that is our future, the internet
connectivity of things and i want to make sure we're in that space of that innovation. i think we can address the security issues, ms. hersman that you've talked about and the safety on our roads, mr. hernandez as well. but at the same time make sure we're training that work force for the future. we're involving them in this discussion when we're talking about the new technology. thank you for the conversations today. i really appreciate it. >> thank you, senator cortez masto. senator inhofe? >> thank you, mr. chairman. the reason you're experiencing some redone dense in questions that are coming, is we have 50% of the committee also on the environment and public works committee. we find ourselves having to go back and forth and it's very difficult. the question that was asked -- mr. clark, let me first of all
say how much we enjoy you. my city of tulsa. i've been in your operation many a time. and it's a great benefit to us, and i appreciate your presence and all the contributions you've made to our local communities very much. when you were asked by senator wicker some things i think are kind of interesting. where are we? it was a difficult question to answer. the rest of you, you know, there's an assumption by the american people that we're always number one, we're always the first there. i know i served as ranking member of the senate armed services committee. we know there are many countries out there that are developing missile technology and other things. that we're really not always number one. but this is something that's new. and i'd kind of like to know if it's -- i think it's appropriate to ask each one of you kind of where are we right now in terms
of other countries. we've heard germany, japan, china, other countries that are advancing. where are we in the mix right now? you've already answered that, mr. clarke, but some of the rest of you? >> when it comes to fatalities, we're trailing. the rest of the industrialized countries have made more progress in the last two decades -- >> no, i'm talking about this technology that is the subject of this meeting today, where we are. >> so the other countries have made more progress. some of that is because they have embraced technology. things like automatic emergency braking, not required here on trucks, looking at that in europe. so they have that in europe. when we look at automated enforcement. again, other countries are embracing some of these technologies at a more rapid clip than the united states. >> yeah, anybody else? any thoughts on that? that explains the european end but anything else? i'd like to know because we get asked these questions, what are other countries doing?
>> we do benchmark, senator, with what our colleagues in europe are doing. we think the proving grounds and the development at the local and state level in the united states is a bit more advanced. i think that's in large part to the environment. we're seeing multiple states and communities stepping up to really attract innovators to their states and cities. i think smart cities were mentioned as well. we're creating those environments where technology can be tested in a safe way. that's a good thing. i think those things, those investments are going to accelerate the adoption of the technology. >> that's fine. i understand that. now when senator markey asked the question, it was kind of presumed that there would be this mass exodus of jobs in america. and so it was a difficult question for you just to answer yes or no to. i guess i'd like to have a comment from each one of you. because i've heard from this committee that there are some arguments that we're actually
going to be employing more people. we're getting into other technology. how do you see us, when this washes out? are we going to have the massive job declines that were kind of assumed in the question that was asked you? would you comment to that? >> i think i struggled just with that straightforward question, just because i start thinking about the number of lives we've lost on our roadways and highways and how to reduce that. and then just that i'm not the subject matter on that key point, but primarily driven by our goal to get to zero and what that will look like. i will tell you from a law enforcement perspective, i've been involved for 30 years, like the senator said. every time we get more technology, it definitely seems to take more people than less to manage those technology systems. >> any other comments on that?
mr. spear? >> i would say that the type of job description we're going to see in the next 20 years for drivers and technicians is going to make these employees more marketable. they're going to be better skilled. they're going to be better trained. employers are investing a lot to more in their capabilities to make sure these technologies are up and running and done in a safe way. we're already facing a shortage. it's the reason i answered no to do. we simply don't believe this is a displacement issue. >> yeah, yeah. well, from your perspective -- the last thing i wanted to ask is do you believe that heavy trucks should be included in the drafting of the legislation? >> absolutely, senator. >> does anyone not believe that? want to speak out on that issue? >> i don't believe they should be part of this current legislation because -- and i don't want to over simplify this. but all the discussion has been about passenger vehicles. and i think we have to recognize that there is a vast difference
between a 4,000 pound car and an 80,000 pound vehicle. >> yeah, you've made that point, and i appreciate that very much. do the other three of you somewhat agree, mostly agree with mr. spear? yeah, all right. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator inhofe. senator hassan? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thanks to you, mr. peters for all your work on this issue. and thank you to the panelists for being here today. there is no doubt that automated vehicles have tremendous potential to save lives and reduce the nearly 4,000 deaths caused by large truck accidents each year and the over 30,000 annual vehicle fatalities on our nation's highways. but what's less clear to me, and i think what you're hearing some questions about is how we can guard against potential harms of this technology from in and out of state actors who are looking to harm us. i don't want to trade one set of harm for another.
i will tell you i spent some of my homework period visiting summer camps in new hampshire. i was visiting one a couple of weeks ago. it was for a group of adolescents. they wanted to know what a senator does. i talked a little bit about the work of this committee and said this committee had jurisdiction over automated vehicles and the legislation around it. and described what the future technology looks like. and within seconds, there were kids 13, 14 years old raising their hands going do you know how easy it would be to hack those? since they're the digital natives among us, i tend to listen to young people when they talk to us about technology. so i am very concerned that we're all assuming that there are going to be levels of cyber security built into this technology when we've seen in
all various industry sectors that sometimes we think about cyber security after the harm is done. and given the lives at stake and the potential of out-of-state actors who want to use vehicles now for a different purpose, i am very concerned that we get the cybersecurity right at the front end and not wait for something bad to happen. we also know there are critical thinking components to operating a vehicle that i'm not sure translate to automated machinery just yet, which is why i think we're seeing the different levels of automation described in this legislation. to all of you, if trucks are added to this bill, what more could be done beyond the bill to guard against potential cyber security risks of automation? >> i'm not a cyber security expert. but i would say it makes a lot
more sense to me to make sure that it's incorporated so that autonomous vehicles are secure whether it's a car or a commercial vehicle. >> thank you. mr. clarke? >> actually, senator, great question and great topic. this whole issue around cyber security is an immediate issue and it is an issue now in our industry. both navistar as well as the competitors and the people in the industry currently have some number of connected vehicles, probably in the neighborhood of 40% of the vehicles that are on the road today are connected teleatically. and we do different things. we offer services. we offer updates. this is an immediate need for us today. i would say this is recognition in this industry to work together like few things we've ever seen. we are committed to get it right. and we will not go to market nor
test without the proper safeguards. we welcome the oversight of -- we have the regulatory bodies in that particular space. we would say it is a rapidly changing area. we don't believe that the right thing is to mandate the technology but certainly we stand ready and willing to participate in the regulatory process to provide the right safeguards. >> well, and because my time is running low, i'll ask the rest of the group to address it. but just would it make stones have a set of standards that everybody had to meet in place? ms. hersman? >> senator, i think that's what we're trying to work toward even without legislation, the commercial sector as well as the automotive isac which is up and running for a couple years now, really developing protocols that are seamless across both autos and commercial vehicles. i think it really speaks to why trucks being part of this legislation is important so, that you get that seamless protocol.
>> ms. hersman? >> i would say there were earlier questions about the voluntary nature of what's going on now. this is exactly why this body needs to get involved. if we don't like what's happening out there, it's because people don't i feel like they have the authority or direction. and i think it's really important for you all to set at least some of those high bars. set that floor and say where you want folks to go. they can figure out how to do it. but we don't have any now. and so it is a bit of the wild west out there, and there needs to be a sheriff. i think the opportunity to do that is through having these conversations and this legislation, not putting it off. >> thank you. and with the chair's indulgence, mr. hall's quickly? >> absolutely i think there needs to be regulations. and i think there needs to be strong regulation, because while there are certainly reputable companies, including people represented here today, there are bad actors out there. and we have repeatedly seen that where, you know, the volkswagen
scandal. if that happens with cybersecurity, we have got a huge problem. and i guess the thing that i see is perhaps, as they say in west virginia, we've got to make sure we're not getting the cart before the horse. >> yeah. >> we need to ensure the stability and safety of these vehicles before we start rolling them out in a proven legislation to put them on the road. >> well, thank you. and thank you for your indulgence, mr. chair. i'll put some questions into the record about workforce training. thanks. >> thank you senator hassan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for the hearing. i haven't been in the entire time. but you've got a great panel because you've got two west virginiian s on the panel, ms. hersman and mr. hall. i know we're in good hands. i recently just returned from a trip from israel. and when the questions were asked what countries were really at the cutting edge, they talked a lot in israel about self-driving and automated
vehicles. and i think they have a very small, very flat country as well. but i think they're really working on the technologies there. so i wanted to bring that up. i have a question, and it may be that i'm off kind of on how these things really work. so mr. clarke, this is sort of directed at you. we live in a state that has spotty connectivity, even on our main arteries through even our wireless on our interstates. it cuts in and out. and have i some concerns that if we move forward on this, or as the technology moves forward, how much connectivity in all the different areas plays into being able to run this efficiently and safely. could you speak to that, please? >> yeah. thank you, senator, for question. the base autonomous system on a vehicle is intended to in fact drive in a very autonomous way. it does not have to be a connected vehicle to be an autonomous vehicle. it operates with a very detailed
3-d map. it's looking and comparing using cameras and light area detectors and making constant comparisons to what's in its memory, looking for things that aren't there, and then making decisions. are those what decisions should taken. not the least of which is i think i don't understand i'm just going to pull over. and so even in a non-connected environment the vehicles can operate autonomously. the safety is significantly enhanced when they do operate in a connected fashion. connected to other vehicle or connected to portions of the infrastructure. or many cases for testing purposes connected back to us. so we can collect that data that can be used by regular tors and analyzed for future purposes. >> you mentioned in your previous question that 40% of your trucks were connected tellmatically. what are you -- >> think about the truck itself has a cell phone.
like every couple seconds it's sending us a mess and on the mechanical systems. >> so through the wireless. okay, thank you. mr. hall, on the concerns about the work force impacts, obviously west virginia we have a lot of truck drivers. it's very a great occupation. i notice looking at the different levels in the -- i don't know level one to four, there's somebody in the car that's being or in the truck. but i started thinking so why is mr. hall worried about if you're going to have a teamster in the truck anyway. is it a lower paying, lower type drive that doesn't have the same beginning salary that somebody who's a member of the teamsters might have? is that your concern? it looks as though at least from the beginning except if urban
situations there's somebody in the vehicle. >> that's a concern. yes. we don't want to see -- just it's been mentioned here today that some comparison to we have pilots and airplanes. even though they're very much automated. so certainly it's a concern. because people make a good living doing that. also our concern is the safety of the driver. as well as the general public in saying that it shouldn't be -- we don't believe you should just include 80,000 pounds trucks. without further study. i don't think you can say because we have been talking about automobiles, that then it just makes sense. it's no more than i bought my grandson a bb gun. i don't think that means i should give him a high powered rifle. because he's learned to shoot a bb gun.
we need make sure we're taking the time to look at some of the aspects of that our so much different about trucks than they are automobiles. but you were right. one of my concerns is there be regulation so that we don't have those bad actors -- most of the companies we deal with are up front and do the right thing. we don't want bad actors putting people on the road and considering the lowest cost at the risk of safety for the general public. >> okay. it's hard to imagine living in the terrain that we live in that an autonomous vehicle, there's certain people i'm not getting it to go up to my house. it's a winding road. there's lots of areas where this is not going to work. let's take i 81. i don't know what the percentage of truck traffic is on that piece of highway.
it's enormous. how do you see this this technology evolving in terms of safety on a crowded highway like that. that's high speed? >> that's a great example. that's exactly the kind of corridor where this technology could work the best. very predictable, repeatable, you have good coverage. you have mapped it out. it's not unknown. and those are the kinds of spaces where i think vehicles can talk to each other. it's a controlled environment. you have widely spaced lanes, you have shoulders where people can pull over. that environment i think is probably one of the spaces where we're talking about using technology like this first. it could control speed. i'm sure if you drive on 81, there are speed racers on that road in addition to it being a truck alley, there's a lot of people moving quickly. we can look at a lot of safety issues that can be addressed through this technology. traffic flow, management, but
safety is the first and most important thing. >> thank you. that you think, mr. chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to quickly recognize to illinois. good panel. mr. clark and miss hersman. touching on what hall just said, i think the name captain sully and the miracle on the hudson is a great example in the importance of a human being decision maker at the control of any type of large vehicle. with the advent of level 3, 4, and 5 opportunity. we face a game changing opportunity in challenges as well. in my lifetime there have been few technologies with more potential to improve the individual. it would be freeing for those be visual impairment, for those that are unable to drive.
to be able to actually leave their homes and gain mobility. clearly the potential to greatly reduce the 30,000 annual road fatalities is exciting. i do know we should expect growing pains and unintended consequences. what i'd like fo focus my discussion on is on how autonomous vehicles will challenge our existing transportation infrastructure. and what that means for our local municipalities and states. and also the future of labor. so mr. clark, what existing and future infrastructure considerations should manufacturers take into account when designing vehicles at level 3 and above? >> that's a great question, senator. it reflects were understanding that commercial vehicles operate in a system or environment that includes the infrastructure. things such as not just the highways but entrance and exits. toll plaza and something as
simple as where can the vehicle pull over. what's exciting about this opportunity is that we can concurrently discover as we're validating the technology, those cost effective or methods to get. what will be some infrastructure needs. the point has been made, autonomous vehicles even the most sophisticated if everything were perfect are just not suited so some roads in america. or circumstances. but, they are suited to a number of other places as well. things like we have already talked about vehicle to videocassetvehicle communication. vehicle to infrastructure communication where the road itself can talk to the vehicle. for incidents that are miles and miles in advance. last but not least, these technologies you would only think of deploying these in a place where the vehicle always had available to it the ability
to pull itself over, and stop. which dictates its riding in the right hand lane. we have to reassess the capacity of the particular thoroughfare. because all the trucks will be in the right hand lane. traffic and speed controlled. but it always needs the ability to pull itself off. or platooning. decell lanes on freeway or limited access highway. may need to be extended so entire vehicles could pull over and still leave room for passenger vehicles to navigate their way off the highway as well. and last but not least a simple example would be the vehicle needs to be driven once it gets off the highway. and perhaps there will be the need for marshalling areas or cross docking facilities. or the ability to pull the vehicle over very close to exit or entrance. to make the right inspection and make the right certification. so we know the vehicle is capable of performing the next
challenge in its task. so the opportunity to bring this technology in a very controlled manner for the purpose of developing data that will fuel regulation and infrastructure research, is the exact opportunity we look forward to. i think i speak for our entire industry. >> thank you. i think it's important to talk about the point beyond getting off out of the interstate. with the major roadways as well. the roads through cities and towns into the industrial areas, into the are 1960s and 70s era. very narrow. there's nothing to replace the human being to negotiate through those. ms. hersman everyone agrees the potential is enormous. from a safety perspective can you speak to the infrastructure. >> on this issue it's really important for states over sight
agency, licensing agencies, need to have a seat at the table. when we look at what's happening now it's happening in controlled environments. they need to be notified of testing that's going on in the state. so they know how to respond. there maybe changes in design that we need to do going forward. we talk about v to i. we have grade crossings in illinois. that's a great opportunity to kind of connect industries. and so how do we keep from having grade crossing fatalities. we have seen pedestrian and cyclist fatalities going up significantly. how do we ensure we're thinking about all road users and not just we're talking about trucks and cars today. but there's a lot of other fatalities o that occur on the roadways. states and municipalities have to be at the table. lane markings and how we have systems that interact with each other. or about the rules of the road that we set. no one is really talked about
consumer education. one of the biggest challenges is how people understand how the vehicles are behaving. weather it's a large truck or car. really important to bring people in the loop, and i think the state and local leaders have a role in that. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator cant well. >> i want to ask mr. clark, obviously the super truck program which is both about moving forward more from an efficiency perspective. in our state was awarded one of the for developing more fuel efficient engines. how do you see the two things working together in the challenges we face on competitiveness of moving u.s. product and keeping cost down? how is increasing fuel efficiency and automation going hand in hand? >> senator, thank you so much. that's i couldn't have asked for
a better set up. all the major truck manufacturers in america participated in the d, o super truck program. as a program itself the super truck program how it was managed -- it was managed in an outstanding way that created the technologies we're putting on vehicles today. to improve their efficiency and operation and how clean they are in the environment, but it really gave us a test that test many of the connected technologies and many of the -- for instance many of the technologies that are in fact the basis of autonomous vehicles going forward. in the program we had such a successful experience with collision mitigation and avoid dance. in the middle of the program we decided to put it on the brand new tractor called the lt and made it standard. collision mitigation is standard. you can delete the option if you choose. surprising to us, the take rate
has been 35%. in fact those vehicles who are equipped with collision mitigation and mitigation style braking, already proven the suggest 24% reduction in those type of accidents. the very accidents it was intended to avoid. so it does it did give us confidence to move forward with that technology. and test flat form where we could do it outside the commercial venue. and i would highlight the super trucks were tested on highways. so we were able to test it with multiple customer environments. across the united states. again it gave us a rapid validation and feed back that let us do something good. not just commercially for us. the drivers as well. >> it's hand and glove, right? it's not just are you going to have automated trucks. it's what are the efficiencies you're going drive into trucks for reducing cost. when we see this from the aerospace industries. huge wins. the customer wants a fuel
efficient plane. driving down the cost in fuel areas and efficiency areas give you a competitive advantage out there marketing cost and moving product. >> yes, senator. this is -- ours is a highly regulated business environment. that's aimed at safety efficiency and basically clean product in the environment. there are no bert safety regulators in the world than in the federal motor carrier safety administration. we have historically worked together to not only bring product to the market that improve safety, reduce operating cost, but create a cleaner environment. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator. senator peters. >> thank you for letting me have another round here. i appreciate your indulgence. thank you to the witnesses here today. the advocates for highway and autosafety have expressed concerns to my office about including trucks in the
legislation. they recommended several ways congress the dot, csa can ensure safety of highly automated trucks. so they have a different perspective or a raising a number of are important issues. i welcome your thoughts on some of the issues that they have raised. the advocates for highway and autosafety believe automated trucks that do not comply with federal motor vehicle safety sarpd should not be to exemption. would you agree with that? >> are you talking about for testing environments? i think that if we have very specific geo fenced testing environments. we want to think about what we're testing. what equipment we're testing. i think operating on the road with the public they need to be subjected to the same standards as other vehicles out there. >> i guess that's an agreement
with the stamp. >> yes. i would say certainly when we look at test environments we talk about a situation where we had a unique test. and created specific parameters around it. so i'd say we have to sometimes put technologies in systems out there if we're testing them to understand what it's like in the real world. it's important not to say we wouldn't want to allow anything. but i think we have to have major control around those things. >> fair enough. have you considered what would be an appropriate number of exemptions for highly automated trucks going forward? >> i think it's possible, i know the committee has a number in their bill. you could think about a pro rata share based on the numbers of vehicles out there. passenger vehicles vs. commercial vehicles. certainly it's in the per view of the committee to put it out there. what we're talking about as far as fully automated vehicles, we're not seeing the numbers now. >> under current law allows 2,500.
would that be sufficient for trucks? i guess my understanding is there about 300,000 produced in the country versus 17 million automobiles. 2,500 sufficient? >> i'm not sure that 2,500 is the right number. i might defer to colleagues who have more real experience with respect to putting vehicles out on the road. it's really important for this committee to engage in this issue. and set some guidelines and some escalation for how that could occur in thoughtful way. right now, there are none. >> right. you're allowed 25 under current. if we change that we need thoughtful consideration of that and get evidence. also believe automated trucks must have an operator with a valid commercial driver's license while in the vehicle at all times and advocating for the secretary to issue a standard for driver engagement. does the national safety counsel have recommendations for
insuring an operator is behind the wheel? >> sorry, you're asking me about other folks rejss. i can share with you our recommendations. >> is that one of them? >> we do feel depending on the lefl of automation there needs to be a qualified driver behind the wheel. one issue is i know we talked about displacement and training programs. but what we really need to talk about are training programs going forward. making sure that there are opportunities for people to be qualified on advance technologies. i held a commercial driver's license, there are endorsements for those licenses whether it's air brakes, school bus, passenger endorsement. i think it's important for us to think through technology. as we advance. how do we train and qualify people for advanced technology? because the systems are going to be complex and require different set of skills.
>> that's actually really my next question. you're ahead of it. the advocates raise concern about driver training. they believe that drivers operating a highly automated truck must have additional endorsement to ensure they have been trained to monitor and understand the operating design domain of the vehicle. and if need be take over the control of the truck. they believe the trabing should include a minimum number of hours behind wheel. and sounds as if that's the direction. >> i absolutely think as long as human beings are engaged, we have to make sure we do it safely. i know everyone is talking about levels two, three, four, five. i would pause it that one of the most dangerous environments are when a human being and the vehicle are sharing control. and how we handle those hand offs. and how we structure the notifications. the warnings. and the training are very important. this is where we have seen in the aviation industry mode
confusion, over reliance on automation, these are really important conversations for us to have. even art levels two and three. before we get to four and five. it's a very messy environment. we need to talk about those things. >> absolutely. i agree. just one final point, they are also suggesting that motor carriers using high lie automated trucks should be required to apply for additional operating authority. has the national safety counsel have you considered that issue? >> i think it's important they apply for operating authority as they're required to do so today. i think it's really important for the federal motor carrier safety administration to identify what that means. and they need to be part of the conversation with respect to vehicle standards, that nit sa is respond for. operations are within their per view. it's a new world out there, everybody has to come along and identify what that means.
>> right. i appreciate those answers. it's clear we need to do more thinking about this. i appreciate your response, thank you. >> thank you, senator peters. thanks to our panel today. it's great conversation and discussion. i think it's shed a lot of light on important issues as we're we try and shape our bill. we have been working on this committee for sometime in trying to craft a bill that really does enable the technology to move forward. with maximum emphasis on safety. and so we're trying to figure out how to thread the needle. i would argue it makes sense not to have two safety standards out there. one for trucks and one for automobiles. and that as we think about these things, we want to have make sure we're providing the safest environment for all motorists on the highway. but that's a point that we continue to talk about. in terms of the final bill we
end up filing. we have to draft out there. i know many of you looked at it. we welcome your thoughts and input. certainly the testimony this morning and the response to your questions has been helpful. in that regard. i would simply say for members of the committee who have questions for the record to submit those and if we could have you respond within a two week time period, it would be very appreciated. and we'll make all that part of the hearing record. thank you again for being here. with that, this hearing is adjourned.
coming up in the morning. we'll be back on capitol hill for day four of a series of senate health, education, labor and pension hearings. looking into ways individual and insurance markets can be improved. we'll hear from doctors and executives from hospitals. and insurance providers. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. right here on c-span 3. online at c-span.org. and streaming on the free c-span radio app. >> during thursday's washington
journal, we're launching our 50 capitols tour for the c-span bus. join us at 7:00 a.m. eastern. to learn more about our plan to visit every u.s. state capitol. the 50 capitols tour. celebrating 25 years of the c-span bus program. up next. the house energy and commerce subcommittee on health examines options for modernizing the food and drug administration regulation of over the counter drugs. we'll hear from doctor woodcock. and several industry stake holders. this hearing runs about two and a half hours. subcommittee on health will come to order. i'll recognize myself five minutes for an opening statement. today's hearing marks the first bl